Guido Fawkes praises General Pinochet


6:26 pm - June 18th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

A couple of weeks ago right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes was whining about the Guardian’s commitment to human rights.

Today he was defending General Pinochet.

There were plenty of smackdowns, but Dan Knowles of the Telegraph did well to point out his hypocrisy.

Keep in mind that when the IDF was bombing Palestinian territories indiscriminately, Guido Fawkes called for pizza to be sent to them in support.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. flyingrodent

Attention-seeking tool in toolish attention-seeking shocker

That’s a bit like praising Peter Sutcliffe for his lorry driving skills

The attempted Cuba/Castro equivalence was good as well.

But you got off lightly, he could have roped in Donal Blaney in support …

This shows the difference between Right and Left. Any left-wing blogger who praised General Jaruzelski or Nicolae Ceau?escu would lose all credibility and be shunned, whereas right-wingers have no problem with their fellows admiring dictators. I could come up with a list as long as your arm of wonderful achievements Communist regimes had, but I’d still be an apologist for tyranny. On the Right, tyranny is acceptable.

What next, praise for Peter Sutliffe for his lorry driving skills?

It’s worth noting that Paul Staines was also a big fan of UNITA and RENAMO, the brutal, Apartheid-backed insurgencies in Angola and Mozambique. Both of these groups are in the running for the ‘worst people in the 20th century prize’. This is particularly the case for RENAMO whose military strategy, as described by the US State Department in the Gersony Report, consisted of committing war crimes against the civilian population to successfully bring Mozambique to its knees.

Life in the lefty-wefty teletubby world is so straight-forward. There are the liberal good guys and everyone else is evil. EVIL I tell you!

If only life were that simple…

8. the a&e charge nurse

Reduced inflation – what a thrill for the 250,000 Chileans rounded up into Pinochet’s concentration camps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qXmgsU61k

Keep in mind that when the IDF was bombing Palestinian territories indiscriminately, Guido Fawkes called for pizza to be sent to them in support.

It wasn’t that anti-Semitic pizza was it?

a&ecn @8:

But he had to kill all those adults to relieve the burden on his corporate chums of having brought child mortality down!

@7:

Your first name is ‘Atlas’ by any chance?

11. flyingrodent

Imagining for the sake of argument that your man there is being serious, and not just trolling…

…It’s worth noting that the country’s most high-profile libertarian appears not only to be a fan of the death penalty, but also of regimes that make heavy use of death squads, war crimes, torture and disappearance of political opponents….

But, like, the tyranny of the licence fee cannot be endured. You have to laugh, really.

12. Trooper Thompson

@4 Chris,

“I could come up with a list as long as your arm of wonderful achievements Communist regimes had”

What, like the massive improvement of eye-sight under the Khmer Rouge? Why, you’re nothing but an apologist for tyranny.

“What, like the massive improvement of eye-sight under the Khmer Rouge? Why, you’re nothing but an apologist for tyranny.”

I think you’ll find it was Attila the Hen who ended up propping that lot up.

14. Just Visiting

Sunny

But it’s quite true, and OK to say that Hitler helped create motorways, and inspire the VB Beetle isn’t?

If Pinochet did some things that we liberals would approve of, it;s OK to say so isn’t it?

> Pinochet voluntarily oversaw a transition to full democracy after the communist threat was defeated.

If that is true – that no reason for LC to mock, is there?

But if Guido is saying that overall Pinochet was a good guy… that may be different.

Can you save us all the bother of searching Guido’s Twitter – and let us know, what does he say is his overall view of Pinochet ?

Good article by Michael Hudson about Pinochet and Chile here,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/10/20/an-interview-with-michael-hudson-on-chile/

Voluntarily moved to democracy?

Fucking hell, amazing how Guido’s “Public Choice” cynicism vanishes for fascists. What a scum bag.

Whoops, that was me. Sorry, used Adam’s moniker as a joke last week.

It’s ok to like the ex dictator. He was a Tory after all.
The UK liked Saddam before he invaded Kuwait regardless of the torture and murder of many of his people before hand.

19. the a&e charge nurse

Does anybody know Iraq’s level of inflation, rate of infant mortality, or attitude to marxists when Saddam was busy murdering political opponents – like Pinochet, it might lead to an entirely different perspective on the misunderstood psychopath if the stats are favourable enough?

20. So Much For Subtlety

4. Chris

This shows the difference between Right and Left. Any left-wing blogger who praised General Jaruzelski or Nicolae Ceau?escu would lose all credibility and be shunned, whereas right-wingers have no problem with their fellows admiring dictators. I could come up with a list as long as your arm of wonderful achievements Communist regimes had, but I’d still be an apologist for tyranny. On the Right, tyranny is acceptable.

Sorry but that is not merely bollocks, it is gold-plated bollocks on a stick. It is exactly the other way around. Paul Staines runs a minor blog site. Semaus Milne runs the Guardian editorial team. Milne regrets the collapse of the USSR. No mainstream paper will touch Staines. Tell me about left wing bloggers. You do not have to go that far – bloggers here at LC regularly praise Left wing mass murderers. No one minds. Contributors took money from totalitarian states and no one minds. Bea Campbell for instance took regular holidays from the East Germans. She does not deny it. Richard Gott was paid by the KGB. He does not deny it. Both are still warmly welcome in mainstream left wing papers. So is Peter Tatchell who took freebies from the Cubans and East Germans. The Guardian cannot bring itself to print the truth about Cuba. They regularly run articles praising the Castro monarchy. And so it goes on.

You deny the Holocaust and you’re unemployable. You deny the Khmer Rouge genocide and you’re a hero of the Left. Just ask Noam Chomsky. You admit Stalin’s murders but say that they were worth it and you will be showered with academic honours. Look at Eric Hobsbawm. You actually take part in those Stalinist murders and never apologise one little bit for it and you will be too. Just ask Zygmunt Bauman.

The Left has a track record here. The Right does not.

21. So Much For Subtlety

Pinochet’s record hardly needs defending. He reluctantly took over after civil order had broken down. After Parliament had asked him to step in. After Allende started importing Cuban and East German “security” agents to deal with Class Enemies. He restored order and financial stability with remarkably little death.

The only people who can possibly object are those that wanted another Cuba or Cambodia in Chile. Which is presumably why no one gives a sh!t about Argentina even though ten times as many people were killed there – the Army did not kick out a Communist there. They are not objecting to the death toll. Allende clearly wanted to kill a lot more. They are objecting because Allende did not get a chance.

22. So Much For Subtlety

13. Jimmy

I think you’ll find it was Attila the Hen who ended up propping that lot up.

No you won’t. Although it is interesting that the Left needs to lie about their Enemy’s non-existent support for the Khmer Rouge who were endorsed by the whole of the Left while they were actually killing people and defending by one of their Heroes in Noam Chomsky for years after they were thrown out of power.

Steven

The UK liked Saddam before he invaded Kuwait regardless of the torture and murder of many of his people before hand.

Another lie from the Left. There is no evidence whatsoever Britain liked Saddam at all.

the a&e charge nurse

Does anybody know Iraq’s level of inflation, rate of infant mortality, or attitude to marxists when Saddam was busy murdering political opponents – like Pinochet, it might lead to an entirely different perspective on the misunderstood psychopath if the stats are favourable enough?

In retrospect it does look like a claim could be made that Saddam’s violence was necessary to keep a lid on Iraqi society. That Iraqis hate each other so much that something like Saddam’s level of brutality is needed to keep order.

But plenty of people do make your argument about Saddam. Michael Moore for one.

“You deny the Khmer Rouge genocide and you’re a hero of the Left.”

Or heroine presumably, such as this nice lady explaining to Blue Peter (the only programme where she ever allowed herself to be questioned on the subject), the difference between “good” Khmer Rouge and “bad” Khmer Rouge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G4dHRN2Dug

“There is no evidence whatsoever Britain liked Saddam at all.”

Did you sleep through the 80s?

24. Shatterface

If only Pinochet had visited Britain while Labour were in power so that he could have been brought to justice.

25. flyingrodent

…He reluctantly took over after civil order had broken down…. He restored order and financial stability with remarkably little death… Allende clearly wanted to kill a lot more.

Do General Franco next, geezer. If you can do Pinochet with this level of hilarity, your justifications for El Generalissimo’s oh-so-regrettable-but-necessary excesses are going to be a laugh riot.

After that, Contra death squads and Rios Montt. Going by that performance, I can actually envisage you gabbling angry excuses if someone produced genuine footage of Reagan in El Salvador demanding – “Mr Fuentes – Mow down these nuns.

I’m just glad someone had the guts to stand up to those dangerous theologians.

27. flyingrodent

No mainstream paper will touch Staines.

And while we’re at it, yon Guido has had several columns published in the opinion pages of the Times and has a regular spot in the Star.

Here’s his effort, dated yesterday – http://tinyurl.com/cy889ua

Not real good on factual matters, eh?

Any left-wing blogger who praised General Jaruzelski or Nicolae Ceaucescu would lose all credibility and be shunned.

Not sure that’s entirely true. As SMFS says above, you have Seumas Milne, whose entire career is a paean of regret for the lost wonders of Stalin. Not to mention Richard Gott, who was actually on the payroll. Even Harriet Harman, who is a little bit more high profile than Paul Staines, describes Fidel Castro as a hero of the left.

Mind you, Staines is quite clearly trolling you chaps here.

29. Elpenor Dignam (@Elpenor_Dignam)

I notice Guido Fawkes & Co. don’t attempt to promote Hitler on his economic successes – that would be a step too far – so instead they attempt to rehabilitate lesser known tyrants, in an effort to whet the public appetite.

30. ex-Labour voter

“Pinochet saw infant mortality rates fall fom 66 per ‘000 to 13 per ‘000, access to clean water rose to 98%, living standards doubled”

No sources are given for any of these claims.

Whose living standards doubled?

“Unlike Castro, Pinochet left behind a stable democracy”

What actually happened was that the US told him to go.

I think defence of Pinochet (SMFS, guido) is a useful shorthand way of identifying right wing nutjobs that are simply not worth engaging with.

As for Milne’s supposed support of Stalin (who did preside over a huge growth in Soviet industrial productivity, so obviously a good guy) Id like to see some solid proof.

I’m so glad Staines has said all this. Particularly his bit about bringing down infant mortality.

It shows up his so called libertarian beliefs as a pile of dog shit. As I keep saying, all libertarians are fake. And right wing ones are the biggest fakes of all.

33. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

Remember that it was only ten months ago some of this lot wanted to detain people in the national stadium.

Just like their hero.

34. Torquil Macneil

Yes Staines is trolling but it is interesting that this sort of mealy mouthed defence of Pinochet excites such outrage while similar stuff about Castro is regarded (on the Guardianish the left at least) as entirely justifiable. I am pretty sure that had Pinochet called himself a marxist many of the most outraged commentators on here would in fact be applauding him.

35. the a&e charge nurse

[34] ‘it is interesting that this sort of mealy mouthed defence of Pinochet excites such outrage’ – so can the pro-Pinochet lobby tell us what the correct sort of reaction should be?

Staines seems to be suggesting grudging respect for the homicidal dictator – after all, Chile’s rate of inflation, hatred of marxism, infant mortality and creative use of football stadia excuse almost any atrocity, surely?

Shorter Staines………… “He got the trains to run on time”

Once a brownshirt always a brownshirt.

There’s nothing wrong with noting the achievements of a leader, and all manner of dictators could be argued to have had them. Such observations must be qualified, however, by the acknowledgement that anyone who tortures and murders peoples is, quite regardless of everything else they do, a total shit.

Apparently, crime theft under Vlad the Impailer fell quite sharply (geddit?)

Guido’s enthusiasm for Pinochet is hardly a surprise. Thatcher and Norman Lamont are big fans of this murderous fascist too.

41. Dick the Prick

To be fair, Blair killed more innocents than Pinochet.

“To be fair, Blair killed more innocents than Pinochet.”

Mornington Crescent.

43. Dick the Prick

Grovesnor Square?

44. Arthur Seaton

No surprise here whatsoever. Like so many “libertarians” W’Staines defends the freedom of the working man to have his right to association banned ,and his wife to be raped by a dog. Oh, and the freedom for him to get thrown out of a helicopter too.

And for God’s sake, can people please stop replying to super-troll So Much for the Holocaust as though he was attempting to engage in serious debate? His name should not be stated without the qualifying intro “Le Pen licking, Pinochet worshiping” as in “Le Pen licking, Pinochet Worshipping, So Much For the Murdered Jews of Vichy France” – that type of thing. Or best of all, just ignore the moral rectal wart.

45. john P reid

Yes and there was this bloke who got Volkswagen and Volvo running ,built motorways, got the trains on time and liked dog’s and children and was a vegetarian, alright he killed 36 million people including 5 million jews and 10 million russian, but you’ve got to look at the good thigns he did lhis name was Hitler,

also The fact that whenhe had the miltary coup, it took 40 years for a demcorcy isn’t raelly A democracy, as for the flaklands, If thatcher hadn’t cut the navy and took the submarines away it wouldn’t have happened and the fact that he sort of helped us, the war could have been stopped and we would have still had it if we really wanted too,

its like when labour M.ps use to say stalin or Chairman mao or Lenin did more good than harm , if Staines want to compare Castro to lenin or Mao would he like to sy Hitler did more good than harm, thoguht not.

46. john P reid

42, so did Livingstones matwes in the IRA.

47. john P reid

so did livingstones mates in the IRA

48. So Much For Subtlety

25. flyingrodent

Do General Franco next, geezer. If you can do Pinochet with this level of hilarity, your justifications for El Generalissimo’s oh-so-regrettable-but-necessary excesses are going to be a laugh riot.

Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary. Coups are wrong. But when civil order has broken down, people are being murdered and genocidal revolution is in the offing, they are the lesser evil. Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco.

Joe

I think defence of Pinochet (SMFS, guido) is a useful shorthand way of identifying right wing nutjobs that are simply not worth engaging with.

Not worth, not able. Whatever.

As for Milne’s supposed support of Stalin (who did preside over a huge growth in Soviet industrial productivity, so obviously a good guy) Id like to see some solid proof.

You could start with his Wikipedia page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html

For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment, captured even by critical films and books of the post-Stalin era such as Wajda’s Man of Marble and Rybakov’s Children of the Arbat. Its existence helped to drive up welfare standards in the west, boosted the anticolonial movement and provided a powerful counterweight to western global domination.

Notice that Soviet living standards did not recover to pre-1914 levels until after Stalin’s death. Oh, and that he starved a few million extra people to death in 1947-48.

Torquil Macneil

I am pretty sure that had Pinochet called himself a marxist many of the most outraged commentators on here would in fact be applauding him.

More to the point, no one here gives a damn about the coup in Argentina – and I bet no one can name the General that led that coup without looking it up. Of course Pinochet removed an ally of the Soviet Union who was importing East German Stasi officers. While the Argentinians removed a non-Marxist. It is not that Pinochet was not a Marxist. It is that he saved Chile from Communism. That is why this coup and only this coup is noteworthy to the Left. They will never forgive him for preventing genocide in Chile.

BenSix

There’s nothing wrong with noting the achievements of a leader, and all manner of dictators could be argued to have had them. Such observations must be qualified, however, by the acknowledgement that anyone who tortures and murders peoples is, quite regardless of everything else they do, a total shit.

That would be more convincing if it was coming from pretty much anyone but you or was posted on any website but this one. Well, left wing ones in general. Because the evidence is overwhelming – the Left actively likes murderers and torturers. They actively defend them. The achievements are irrelevant. It is the murders that counts. So no one cares about Communist governments in Kerala or Guyana. They took power democratically and killed no one. Go on, name a leader in either country. But Pol Pot took power with the support of the entire Left. Mao still have defenders to this day. And far from being shamed and driven out of Left Wing media, Seumas Milne is a powerful and important person. This is not a problem for the Far Left – such as yourself. It is a problem for the middle of the road moderate Left. Compass claims Zygmunt Bauman as their political and moral inspiration. What did Bauman do during the war?

Zygmunt Bauman was born to non-practising Polish-Jewish parents in Pozna?, Poland, in 1925. When Poland was invaded by the Nazis in 1939 his family escaped eastwards into the Soviet Union. Bauman went on to serve in the Soviet-controlled Polish First Army, working as a political education instructor. He took part in the battles of Kolberg (now Ko?obrzeg) and Berlin. In May 1945 he was awarded the Military Cross of Valour.
According to semi-official statements of a historian with the Polish Institute of National Remembrance made in the conservative magazine Ozon in May 2006, from 1945 to 1953 Bauman held a similar function in the Internal Security Corps (KBW), a military unit formed to combat Ukrainian nationalist insurgents and part of the remnants of the Polish Home Army.
Bauman, the magazine states, distinguished himself as the leader of a unit that captured a large number of underground combatants. Further, the author cites evidence that Bauman worked as an informer for the Military Intelligence from 1945 to 1948.

What do you know. First he served as a Political Officer for Stalin. Then he served Stalin and Stalin’s repression in turning his own country into a Soviet puppet. In other words he managed to combine the Soviet equivalent of being a member of the SS and being a Quisling. And yet academic honours rain down on him and the moderate Left sucks up to him.

There is nothing remotely comparable on the Right. Alan Clarke may have been a vile man, but he did not actually serve in the Waffen SS.

The thing with SMFS is that he is so frothingly terrified of communism and socialism, that if it were necessary to kill every man, woman and child in the UK to prevent a revolution, he’d quite happily call for that to be done.

50. flyingrodent

Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary.

This is going to be the full content of most of my responses to So Much For Subtlety from now on.

The left are overly blah to blah blah blah? Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary.

Immediate action must be taken to blah blah blah? Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary.

Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary. Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary. Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary.

What a storming bellend that man truly is.

50 – as a shorthand I think the next sentence, “Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco”, has a bit more punch to it…

52. flyingrodent

Tim – Jesus Christ on a bike.

53. flyingrodent

Maybe I should respond instead with photos of a bombed and broiled Guernica, embellished with comical LOLCat slogans like “Want”, “Support” and “I Is In Yr Sivilyin Popyoolayshun/Killin Indiscriminitly”.

@48 SMFS

“Everything Franco did was also entirely necessary. Coups are wrong. But when civil order has broken down, people are being murdered and genocidal revolution is in the offing, they are the lesser evil. Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco.”

Of all the wrong headed, obtuse nonsense I have read on this site (or indeed any other) by right wing apologists, this has to be the most odious I’ve ever read. Indeed it is so patently nonsensical and ahistorical that if it were anyone else but you posting it I would be convinced it was sarcasm.

Go and read the recent book “The Spanish Holocaust” by Paul Preston (which I recently finished and highly recommend), then come back and tell us what a paragon of liberty Franco was. What franco and his Africanistas did was not just wrong and morally repugnant, it was as Preston clearly demonstrates specifically aimed and terrorising the Spanish populace into obedience and exterminating not only anyone who opposed the Rebel coup and anyone involved in Republican politics prior to the coup, but also many of their families.

The Rebel authorities actively encouraged atrocities against their political opponents, and the numbers killed by the fascists far outweighed those rightists killed in the Republican zone. Despite shortcomings, the Republican authorities often acted to prevent anrachists and others on the far left from killing rightists…. there is virtually no evidence of the Rebels doing so. Indeed Preston’s book demonstrates and gives many examples of Republican politicians and political supporters who acted to save Rightists from execution by the far left who were subsequently executed by the Rebels in spite of the people they had saved pleading for them to be spared.

Even Himmler and his SS cronies (who visited Spain no doubt with a view to getting some tips) were taken aback by the scale and breadth of Franco’s actions against his own people.

Anyone who voices support for Franco, or apologises for his actions is an amoral principle void. I knew you were pretty “out there”, but I had underestimated the depths of your depravity.

55. Dick the Prick

@SMFS – good lad, never got my head round loads of posh lefties fucked off to join the Spanish civil war unless it was vanguard. Unlucky! None of my business, got my own shit.

This is not a problem for the Far Left – such as yourself.

My dear So Much for Subtlety, your attempts to assert your moral superiority are endearing but I’m not a member of the “Far Left”; have no sympathy for Communist governments; can’t stand Mr Milne and have never encountered the work of this Bauman fellow. You, on the other hand, have said “every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco“. Q.E.to-the-goddamn-D.

SMFS makes more sense, and will make your blood boil less, if you read his/her comments an elaborate attempt to contradict everything that left wing people ever say. For example, if you were to criticise serial killing he’d start implying that you were a fan of Pol Pot. If you to offer the opinion that paedophilia is wrong he’d start posting about Peter Tatchell’s support for the lowering of the age of consent. If you were to remark, in passing, that the torture of puppy dogs was to be frowned upon he’d dredge up an anecdote about a Sandinista rebel kicking a labrador and hold you responsible.

@45

“its like when labour M.ps use to say stalin or Chairman mao or Lenin did more good than harm”

Oh? Who said that? I want names please. if you have no names or links, then STFU.

57 – one for you here I think:

Had a long talk to the Chinese First Secretary at the embassy — a very charming man called Liao Dong — and said how much I admired Mao Tse tung or Zedong, the greatest man of the twentieth century. He said that I couldn’t admire Mao more than he did. I asked him how Mao was viewed now. He said Mao was 70 per cent right and 30 per cent wrong; the Cultural Revolution didn’t work. He said he had been named after Mao — it was amusing.

Journal entry for 6 June 1996 in Free at Last!: Diaries, 1991-2001 (2003) p.371

Not even as measured as “did more harm than good”. “The greatest man of the twentieth century”.

There were plenty of tories like Staines in the 1930s. Big admirers of Hitler and what he was doing. They have been pretty well airbrushed out of history these days. The official line is “we were all Churchill fans then.”

60. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

What a storming bellend that man truly is.

It’s a bot, anyone with half a brain can figure that out.

That’s why there are never primary sources in it’s output.

61. Robin Levett

@Tim J:

That would be Viscount Stansgate, wouldn’t it?

62. Dick the Prick

@59 – Sally. I defo agree with fine line between Tory and control freakery but it would be considered rude to attack a race. Reductio ad absurdem is available in all camps and Brown’s control freakery seems to be matched by Cameron’s indolence. Compiling lists of least scary dictators is a numbers game, surely, which is horrific.

63. the a&e charge nurse

“Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco”, yes, and the generalissimos have a baseball bat, or pair of electrodes to help explain ‘political philosophy’ when it comes to their exciting views on inflation, infant mortality and marxism!

61 – the artist formerly known as, yes.

The correct way to view dictators is an interesting little conundrum.

In the modern way of looking at things, legitimate authority requires the consent of the governed. This implies that the only legitimate form of government is democracy. So are all dictators equally bad? That could be too one-dimensional a way of looking at things, though. It’s clear that current Chinese growth rates are pulling millions of people out of poverty, for example. Perhaps dictators have good aspects and bad aspects, and there should be a bit of means and ends reckoning to balance out the blanket opprobrium required by liberal-democratic doctrine.

A further problem is that the whole notion of democratic governments pursuing their own self-interest in an international setting also seems wrong from the point of view of contemporary liberalism. The liberal ideal is bound up with the notion of autonomy: individuals are the authors of their own selves, and should all be equally free in this regard (within reasonable bounds). At the international level, why should some states be more restricted in their choices and other states less restricted by virtue of seemingly arbitrary factors like the size of their economy? That doesn’t seem fair. In this context, it might make sense to support non-democracies because they are at the bottom of a hierarchy of wealth that has a material impact on the way that the international community is organised.

And of course, we all know that democratic wealth and power are derived from colonialism and ultimately from episodes in which liberal-democratic standards were violated. That’s obviously unfair. Unfortunately, this weakens the branch we’re sitting on, that of legitimate democratic authority. So we end up not really knowing what the attitude consistent with liberal principles is.

66. So Much For Subtlety

49. Cylux

The thing with SMFS is that he is so frothingly terrified of communism and socialism, that if it were necessary to kill every man, woman and child in the UK to prevent a revolution, he’d quite happily call for that to be done.

Ahh, and we see the desperate dishonesty of the Left. I have not mention socialists. Not once. I have mentioned Communists. And yes, to prevent the Communists coming to power in the UK, or anywhere else, violently, a great deal of violence is entirely justified. The lesser of two evils. Given Communism has killed over 120 million people in the past century there is no other moral position to take. However I would welcome Old Labour (that is, pre-the-1968 generation) back in power. Better than either lot in Parliament today.

flyingrodent

This is going to be the full content of most of my responses to So Much For Subtlety from now on.

Well I hate to say it, but it would be an improvement. It would actually be something I said for one thing. Less abusive language too. So pip, pip Old Chap. Looking forward to it.

What a storming bellend that man truly is.

But as usual, not wrong. As can be seen by the fact that all I get is insults rather than an actual argument. From anyone.

flyingrodent

Maybe I should respond instead with photos of a bombed and broiled Guernica, embellished with comical LOLCat slogans like “Want”, “Support” and “I Is In Yr Sivilyin Popyoolayshun/Killin Indiscriminitly”.

Maybe you should. And I will respond with pictures of children starved to death in virtually every Communist country in the world. What do you think this will prove except that we have to look at each atrocity on a case by case basis and not, as you seem to do, on the basis of your side being right and everyone opposed to them being wrong?

Galen10

Go and read the recent book “The Spanish Holocaust” by Paul Preston (which I recently finished and highly recommend), then come back and tell us what a paragon of liberty Franco was. What franco and his Africanistas did was not just wrong and morally repugnant, it was as Preston clearly demonstrates specifically aimed and terrorising the Spanish populace into obedience and exterminating not only anyone who opposed the Rebel coup and anyone involved in Republican politics prior to the coup, but also many of their families.

Preston is a Guardian journalist with an axe to grind. That does not make him right. His work is contentious to say the least. But even if it was true, so what? That would still make Franco less bad than the alternative which was Stalin. Franco did not murder people by class. The Republicans did. As soon as Franco crushed the Republic, mass murder stopped. He achieved his aim – he was not after all a revolutionary aiming to transform society. The Communists would have started their big murderous campaigns once they had won.

The Rebel authorities actively encouraged atrocities against their political opponents, and the numbers killed by the fascists far outweighed those rightists killed in the Republican zone.

Well yes and no. The Nationalists won. The Republic did not get their way. They never got to control the whole of Spain – at least they didn’t once the mass killings became widespread. The Nationalists did. Whoever wins any civil war tends to kill the most.

Despite shortcomings, the Republican authorities often acted to prevent anrachists and others on the far left from killing rightists…. there is virtually no evidence of the Rebels doing so.

Often? Come on. Who is doing the mass killing? The anarchists and the Communists. Who happen to be the government. Even as lies go this is weak.

Even Himmler and his SS cronies (who visited Spain no doubt with a view to getting some tips) were taken aback by the scale and breadth of Franco’s actions against his own people.

Bollocks.

BenSix

I’m not a member of the “Far Left”; have no sympathy for Communist governments; can’t stand Mr Milne and have never encountered the work of this Bauman fellow. You, on the other hand, have said “every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco“. Q.E.to-the-goddamn-D.

I did not say you had sympathy for Communist governments. The Communists do not exhaust the Far Left. I do on the other hand actually read what you write.

And what I said about Pinochet especially but also Franco remains true. As bad as Franco was for Spain, Spain is better off it did not follow Romania or Bulgaria or Cambodia down the Marxist-Leninist path.

the a&e charge nurse

yes, and the generalissimos have a baseball bat, or pair of electrodes to help explain ‘political philosophy’ when it comes to their exciting views on inflation, infant mortality and marxism!

As do Marxists. When it is a choice between being tortured by one or tortured by the other, most people chose the one who is going to torture someone else, but they should be choosing the one who is going to torture the least. Which always, or almost always, means the non-Marxist.

67. the a&e charge nurse

[66] the point of this piece is not which psycho has the most impressive atrocity rating but the fact certain commentators are now acting as apologists for terrible deeds that have been committed.

Rationalising mass murder and the use of concentration camps with drivel about infant mortality rates inspires only loathing – surely you can at least see that?

@66 SMFS

“Preston is a Guardian journalist with an axe to grind. That does not make him right. His work is contentious to say the least. But even if it was true, so what? That would still make Franco less bad than the alternative which was Stalin. Franco did not murder people by class. The Republicans did. As soon as Franco crushed the Republic, mass murder stopped. He achieved his aim – he was not after all a revolutionary aiming to transform society. The Communists would have started their big murderous campaigns once they had won.”

Nonsense; he is the preeminent scholar in his field. If you beleive his work is factually incorrect, then feel free to debunk his wrongness with reference to scholarly tomes of similar worth. “So what?” If he is right? You honestly see nothing wrong with what Franco did, on the (specious) grounds that if he hadn’t acted the Second Republic would have slipped in to Stalinism? There is no basis for that at all.

The Nationalist carried out purges of anyone who had held office under the Republic, not just of the left, but moderates, centrists, and constiutional rightists, as well as of course Basque and Catalan nationalists. there was a definite class element to the purges of union members…. they were hardly stuffed with upper class spaniards keen to promote the interests of the Spanish workers.

Mass murder carried on in the immediate aftermath of the Nationalist victory, and for years after….. the cleansing was already accomplished in Nationalist held areas before their victory. There is no evidence or support for your view that ther Nationalist coup prevented the country slipping into Stalinism or communism.

“Well yes and no. The Nationalists won. The Republic did not get their way. They never got to control the whole of Spain – at least they didn’t once the mass killings became widespread. The Nationalists did. Whoever wins any civil war tends to kill the most.”

Simplistic tosh. The Second Republic was in control of the whole country prior to the Franco coup d’etat. The mass killings were overwhelmingly carried out by the Nationalists. It is farcical of you to try and re-write history.

“Often? Come on. Who is doing the mass killing? The anarchists and the Communists. Who happen to be the government. Even as lies go this is weak.”

Feel free to rebut these lies with attributed sources… there are plenty in support of what you say are lies in Professor Preston’s book. Killings by anarchists and communists (terrible and widespread as they were) were dwarved by those carried out by Franco and his allies. the whole conflict is replete with examples of the Republican authorities minimising the killings, and defending rightists, whereas the Nationalists rarely if ever did so. Feel free to give examples supporting your point …not that you will be able to of course.

“Bollocks.” (your erudite response to the point about the SS being shocked at the scale of Francoist atrocities.

Why is it bollocks? The visits are well attested, as is their reaction to them. Preston’s book reproduces photos of the meetings FFS….! So, stun us with another… why is it bollocks…?

69. So Much For Subtlety

67. the a&e charge nurse

the point of this piece is not which psycho has the most impressive atrocity rating but the fact certain commentators are now acting as apologists for terrible deeds that have been committed.

Rationalising mass murder and the use of concentration camps with drivel about infant mortality rates inspires only loathing – surely you can at least see that?

I agree that rationalising mass murder with drivel about infant mortality rates is vile. Especially when Seumus Milne does it. Although I continue to notice the utter silence from the mainstream left when Milne and his fellows do it. That is not my point. My point is that when civil order breaks down and the civilised rules are no longer being applied, people have to make decisions about which side they are on and whether they are going to sit by and be victims. A lot of people choose not to. Whether that choice is the right one or not must depend on the threat they face and the scale of the violence they commit.

Galen10

Nonsense; he is the preeminent scholar in his field. If you beleive his work is factually incorrect, then feel free to debunk his wrongness with reference to scholarly tomes of similar worth.

Sorry but the pre-eminent scholar in his field? He is not a scholar. He is the former editor of the Guardian. He was editor when the Guardian was at its Soviet appeasing worst. He has no academic standing at all. I don’t need to rebut his work. I could point to others who have, but I don’t see the point. He has an axe to grind and his views are worthless. He worked for the Guardian!

You honestly see nothing wrong with what Franco did, on the (specious) grounds that if he hadn’t acted the Second Republic would have slipped in to Stalinism? There is no basis for that at all.

The grounds are not specious. Violence broke out long before Franco acted. The Socialists and Anarchists were taking to the streets and murdering people. The Socialists in particular were moving to back the USSR with the Stalinists being especially strong in the Youth Wing of the party. We cannot prove what would have happened, but the Spanish Right had reason to fear. Their belief was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

The Nationalist carried out purges of anyone who had held office under the Republic, not just of the left, but moderates, centrists, and constiutional rightists, as well as of course Basque and Catalan nationalists. there was a definite class element to the purges of union members…. they were hardly stuffed with upper class spaniards keen to promote the interests of the Spanish workers.

No but they were purged as Unionists and Catalan nationalists. Not as workers or Catalans. Indeed for all the claims about Franco’s brutality, the parties of the Left, the centre and even the Basque and Catalan nationalists, continued to exist under Franco’s rule. Quietly. Unlike in, say, the Soviet Union where by this time every member of virtually every political party but the Communists had been murdered.

Mass murder carried on in the immediate aftermath of the Nationalist victory, and for years after….. the cleansing was already accomplished in Nationalist held areas before their victory. There is no evidence or support for your view that ther Nationalist coup prevented the country slipping into Stalinism or communism.

The only way you can come to your last conclusion is if you refuse to read Orwell or any other eyewitness. The Stalinists were growing in power all through the war. Mass murder was not carried out for years after.

Feel free to rebut these lies with attributed sources…

Sorry but you are denying that the anarchists and Communists were part of the Republic’s government? Why are you wasting my time?

Killings by anarchists and communists (terrible and widespread as they were) were dwarved by those carried out by Franco and his allies.

Only because Franco won. Not because the Anarchists and Communists did not want to kill more.

the whole conflict is replete with examples of the Republican authorities minimising the killings, and defending rightists, whereas the Nationalists rarely if ever did so.

Sorry but that is nonsense.

Why is it bollocks? The visits are well attested, as is their reaction to them. Preston’s book reproduces photos of the meetings FFS….! So, stun us with another… why is it bollocks…?

I would not trust even a photo in Preston’s book. Nothing he says can be taken on face value. He worked for the Guardian for years. I am sure some visits took place. But I doubt you have any evidence of the feelings and responses you are projecting onto them.

70. flyingrodent

Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco.

As a one-off statement, it’s at least conceivable that it might, in theory, be worth responding to drivel of this nature. As part of an unbroken run of months of non-stop drivel, it should be fairly clear that any reasoned responses are pointless.

Some people have nutty opinions; others are true eccentrics, and still others are unsuspected and flawed geniuses with hidden gems to share.

Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco.

Meanwhile, others are just insufferable knobheads who enjoy subjecting strangers to their weird and highly unsavoury theories on civil governance.

SMFS belongs firmly in the latter category. The man’s a chump. Trying to argue sense into him or trying to divine some sane message from his ramblings is utterly misguided. You’d do better shouting into a bucket or raking through a bin.

Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco.

Advice – Point. Laugh. Then, do something more worthwhile, like alphabetising your DVD collection.

71. flyingrodent

I would not trust even a photo in Preston’s book. Nothing he says can be taken on face value. He worked for the Guardian for years.

Here, we see a glaring example of the utter worthlessness of SMFS’s declarations.

Man who is explicitly declaring his support for one of the 20th century’s most notorious fascist war criminals believes that his assertions on whose opinions carry merit are valid.

Lunatic, mentalist, wackadoodle headbanger.

Every morally sensitive and decent person has to support Pinochet and Franco.

Nutjob. Extremely alarming that this sort of person may own animals, sharp implements, electronic devices and motor vehicles.

“He is the former editor of the Guardian. ”

Or at least he has the same surname as a former editor, which is enough to discredit him.

I think we should rename smfs as the cut and paste troll.

Never has so much been cut and pasted, by such a dork for so many who just scroll on by.

74. Just Visiting

Jimmy

>> “He is the former editor of the Guardian. ”

> Or at least he has the same surname as a former editor,

Are you saying paul Preston, author of “The Spanish Holocaust” was not a former Grauniad editor?

If so, then SMFS owes an apology.

A guy called Peter Preston was editor of the Guardian, but not the historian Paul Preston. Course SMFS doesn’t trouble himself overmuch with ‘facts’.

Are you saying paul Preston, author of “The Spanish Holocaust” was not a former Grauniad editor?

Peter Preston was editor of the Guardian. Paul Preston is a historian of Spain.

That’s SMFS: wrong on the big things, wrong on the small things.

If so, then SMFS owes an apology.

Yup. But then, have you ever known “So Much For Subtlety” to apologise for anything?

I’ve not once seen him apologise for any of the errors and idiocies which litter his screeds.

e.g. He didn’t apologise when he was caught telling ludicrous lies about how “the WHO’s vaccination programmes are what allowed HIV to escape from the fringes of the jungle in West Africa to become the global problem it is today”.

And now, he doesn’t seem likely to apologise for the admiration for blood-thirsty tyrants and contempt for their victims that he’s expressed this very thread.

So I hardly think the trivial matter of getting two people muddled up is likely to draw an apology. After all, they do have very similar names.

Peter Preston was editor of the Guardian. Paul Preston is a historian of Spain.

I feel like I’ve borne witness to a special moment here.

78. So Much For Subtlety

70. flyingrodent

As a one-off statement, it’s at least conceivable that it might, in theory, be worth responding to drivel of this nature. As part of an unbroken run of months of non-stop drivel, it should be fairly clear that any reasoned responses are pointless.

You know, you keep telling the world how you’re not going to respond to anything I write any more. And yet you do. Repeatedly. Usually within minutes. Is this some sort of attempt at flirting or are you doing something vaguely more disturbing?

SMFS belongs firmly in the latter category. The man’s a chump. Trying to argue sense into him or trying to divine some sane message from his ramblings is utterly misguided. You’d do better shouting into a bucket or raking through a bin.

I don’t think a single person here has any problems working out the message in what I said. You may not like it. You clearly have nothing useful to counter it. But that is not the same as being incoherent.

flyingrodent

Man who is explicitly declaring his support for one of the 20th century’s most notorious fascist war criminals believes that his assertions on whose opinions carry merit are valid.

Sorry but when was Franco charged with war crimes?

Sally

I think we should rename smfs as the cut and paste troll. Never has so much been cut and pasted, by such a dork for so many who just scroll on by.

Sorry Sally but precisely how much has been cut and pasted here?

Just Visiting

If so, then SMFS owes an apology.

And it seems he is right and I was wrong. I unreservedly apologise.

Larry

e.g. He didn’t apologise when he was caught telling ludicrous lies about how “the WHO’s vaccination programmes are what allowed HIV to escape from the fringes of the jungle in West Africa to become the global problem it is today”.

Given I did not say that and I documented what I did say as well, why should I apologise?

And now, he doesn’t seem likely to apologise for the admiration for blood-thirsty tyrants and contempt for their victims that he’s expressed this very thread.

I defy you to find one word that could even be interpreted as admiration for Franco. As usual you lie.

BenSix

I feel like I’ve borne witness to a special moment here.

Indeed you are. Because I am so rarely wrong. Nor am I wrong about Pinochet and Franco. As you can see by the fact that only one person is bothering to argue the facts. The rest are hurling abuse. If they had facts, they would try to argue the facts. They do not.

I think a lot of people simply don’t bother to engage with you because they feel it is a complete waste of time.

Do you still disregard that Franco met with the Nazis and they were shocked with his brutality, given the only reason you gave for denying it happened was that the book was written by a former editor of the Guardian who was obviously a KGB agent and so everything in it, no matter whether it was photographs or accounts of people involved, should be completely ignored.

On the internet you come across as someone who is never too busy to say something mean spirited, never slow to blame a victim or argue that people shouldn’t help each other. You come across as someone who has nothing but spite towards other human beings.

Are you like that in real life? And if so, don’t you get lonely?

“Indeed you are. Because I am so rarely wrong.”

I suspect he meant “special” in the other sense.

“Nor am I wrong about Pinochet and Franco.”

Dorothy Pinochet and Enid Franco perhaps?

81. SMFS Family

SMFS is a twat…and Dick the Prick is a massive cock…a really massive cock whose own family is really ashamed that they didn’t abort him when they had the chance.

Seriously if you just ignored SMFS he would go away. Still the man seems to have a lot of time on his hand, as I am sure this can’t be the only blog he projectile vomits on to. What DO you do sir?

SMFS confuses Peter and Paul Preston. And Sunny confuses the jurisdiction for a website with the jurisdiction for the London cable car:

http://timworstall.com/2012/06/20/the-amazing-disappearing-sunny-post/#comments

We all make mistakes.

@78 SMFS

So not only do you have no idea who the pre-eminent scholar in the field actually is, but you don’t even bother to try and find out? Even if you don’t have the time or inclination to read the book (or his biography of the vile Franco, which is widely regarded as the seminal recent biography) you at least have an obligation to engage with the content of the book, rather than dismissing it.

You keep banging on about “facts”, but true to your usual form you marshall no evidence to back up your ridiculous assertions.

Every single response you provided @69 to my earlier post is comprehnsively and definitively disproved by Preston’s book, and mounds of scholarship and testimony. you obviously have no clue about spanish history, the circumstances of the Civil War, or what happened afterwards.

It isn’t a sin to be ignorant SMFS, it IS a sin to be proud of it.

84. Shatterface

The only way you can come to your last conclusion is if you refuse to read Orwell or any other eyewitness. The Stalinists were growing in power all through the war. Mass murder was not carried out for years after.

Are we talking about Peter or Paul Orwell here? It certainly can’t have been George Orwell because even Harry’s Place couldn’t twist George Orwell’s account of the Spanish Civil War into a pro-Franco denunciation of POUM (with which he served) or the anarcho-syndicalist CNT.

82 – yes I was sorry to see that one vanish into the ether. Was quite enjoying that thread.

@78 SMFS

“Sorry but when was Franco charged with war crimes?”

The fact that he was never charged with them, doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty of them. There is of course ample evidence, both direct and indirect that he was personally responsible for crimes which would have been enough to see him indicted and convicted in the Hague.

@69 SMFS

“Only because Franco won. Not because the Anarchists and Communists did not want to kill more.”

No. as Preston’s book points out (with detailed figures which are widely accepted), the number of people murdered by falangists, Rebel forces, landowners and other sundry far-rightists, is FAR higher in virtually every province of Spain.

Preston’s book repeatedly demonstrates that in areas which the Rebels took quickly after their coup, they moved (often on direct orders of those who led the coup) to liquidate anyone who opposed them, not just communists and anarchists, but anyone in any of the constitutional parties, anyone in a trade union, and anyone who had opposed the coup. This often included people on the political right, liberal religious people and masons who were a particular hate group for them. Even suspicion of being a sympathiser was often a death sentence.

It is similarly amply demonstrated that in Republican areas, supporters of the coup were often detained by the government, but their treatment was in the main nowhere near as bad either in degree or scale as that doled out by the Rebels. Over and over again it has been proven that whilst the Republican government OFTEN acted to protect rightist prisoners, the Rebels virtually never reciprocated, in fact quite the reverse.

Time and again Franco and his minions said that no-one who didn’t have blood on their hands had anything to fear from the Rebel forces, only to be murdered when they fell into Rebel hands simply for being a Union member, a mason, member of a mainstream political party, or having upset local landowners before the coup.

The numbers killed are vastly disproportionate, and there is no value to your claim that anarchists and communists “wanted” to kill more but were only prevented by a Francoist victory. There is no guarantee that the anarchists and communists would have gotten their way if the Rebels hadn’t overthrown the Republic, whereas the Rebels and their supporters were always going to carry out their plan to cleanse Spain of what they saw as the peril of godless communism, masonry and jewish capitalism.

Go and actually read Preston’s book, then come back and tell us how necessary Franco was.

Flyingrodent @25:

Do General Franco next, geezer. If you can do Pinochet with this level of hilarity, your justifications for El Generalissimo’s oh-so-regrettable-but-necessary excesses are going to be a laugh riot.

He wasn’t wrong, was he?

@ SMFS 69

” I am sure some visits took place. But I doubt you have any evidence of the feelings and responses you are projecting onto them.”

I’m sure I can muster a lot more evidence supporting Nazi (and Italian fascist) shock at the scale and brutality of Nationalist atrocities in spain, than you can come up with evidence against it.

You might like to start with the sources quoted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain)#cite_note-204

Which refers both to Himmler and Ciano’s (Italian Foreign Minister and son-in-law of Mussolini) attitudes.

It also provides a pretty detailed anyalysis of the relative numbers killed in both the White and Red terrors during (and in the case of the Nationalists after) the Civil War, showing conclusively that the numbers killed by the fascists were far in excess of those killed by the left.

So… go on… feel free to cite your evidence to the contrary…

89. john p Reid

Michael foot said on the death of Stalin he did more good than harm, Tony Benn said chairman Mao was the greatest bloke of the 20th century, Diane Abbott said Mao did more good than harm, on ‘this week’ in 2009 it’s on you tube

Ken livingstone said the same citing that Mao stopped chinese girls beign forces to wear shoes to tight for them, although this was actually stopped in the 1920’#s and taht Moa was good as he helped hina stand up to the Japs during the war, of course Mao didn’t actually become leader of China till 4 years after the war, but that escaped Livingstone

He’s good on Westminster, but laughably out of his depth on foreign affairs.

91. David Ellis

Why do you give this fat tory twat publicity?

You know the best way to deal with Guido Fawkes? STOP COMMENTINON THE DAMN TROLLING GIT!

*ahem*

I think you get my point. He’s a nobody if you treat him as such.

(please ignore the typo it was written in angry troll mode)

Should have read “stop commenting on him”.

Have a lovely day everyone.

Well SMFS, since you accepted the Franco challenge and clearly think you’ve justified everything he did, can we have Mussolini next?

PS – SMFS’s position looks familiar…

“”Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, I was not blind to what he (Hitler) had done for Germany, and to the achievement from his point of view of keeping Communism out of his country.” ~ Lord Halifax’s diary, Nov 1937


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Neil Griffiths

    Here @guidofawkes defends Pinochet: http://t.co/rQcr6y6r and elsewhere @donatahuggins wants no toilet breaks for call centre staff #scum

  2. That Oliver James

    Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/OPZVE18O

  3. Kevin Donovan

    Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/OPZVE18O

  4. Jamie Potter

    Guido Fawkes defends General Pinochet http://t.co/tNzqietc I'm really feeling the love for Tories this evening

  5. Christy Tuohy

    So-called "libertarian" showing his true colours MT @sunny_hundal Right-wing blog @GuidoFawkes praises General Pinochet http://t.co/TeLnhGhO

  6. Christy Tuohy

    Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/OPZVE18O

  7. John McLean

    Stay classy, Guido. http://t.co/pX9DL37W

  8. Andy Bean

    Stay classy, Guido. http://t.co/pX9DL37W

  9. Phillip Brightmore

    So-called "libertarian" showing his true colours MT @sunny_hundal Right-wing blog @GuidoFawkes praises General Pinochet http://t.co/TeLnhGhO

  10. BevR

    Guido Fawkes defends General Pinochet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zvIkCTU4 via @libcon

  11. Ben White

    Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/OPZVE18O

  12. David J Smith

    RT @sunny_hundal Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/wr3Vagok

  13. Milena Buyum

    Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/OPZVE18O

  14. Robert Kazandjian

    Guido Fawkes launches flawed, idiotic defence of #Pinochet … http://t.co/kKanyBW9

  15. Alex Braithwaite

    Guido Fawkes defends General Pinochet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/S9FRsWYV via @libcon#LOL

  16. Andrew Spooner

    Guido Fawkes defends General Pinochet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/S9FRsWYV via @libcon#LOL

  17. John Doolan

    Guido Fawkes defends General Pinochet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/S9FRsWYV via @libcon#LOL

  18. Gabrielle Cohen

    Guido Fawkes defends General Pinochet by @sunny_hundal. The likes of Guido get more and more crazy to remain relevant: http://t.co/jO1VPSH5

  19. Joseph Burnett

    Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/OPZVE18O

  20. BevR

    Guido Fawkes praises General Pinochet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zvIkCTU4 via @libcon

  21. Miss MaggieMae

    Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes praises murderous dictator General Pinochet http://t.co/OPZVE18O

  22. Charles Gillies

    @CalumGRoberts http://t.co/3b1Ro7JF

  23. Natacha Kennedy

    @guidofawkes likes Pinochet http://t.co/XlDR3bTs Apparently prepared to overlook rape, murder, torture, "disappearances", censorship…

  24. leonie marianne

    @guidofawkes likes Pinochet http://t.co/XlDR3bTs Apparently prepared to overlook rape, murder, torture, "disappearances", censorship…

  25. Max Rhodes

    @harry_fraser @Maxwrh2 @PennyRed @GuidoFawkes http://t.co/pbrfIwrJ

  26. Guido Fawkes: dictators, racism and hypocrisy | Guy Debord's Cat

    […] right-wing enfant terrible of the Internet, Guido Fawkes (real name Paul Staines), has recently tweeted a slew of shameless apologies for Augusto Pinochet . It shouldn’t surprise anyone really, because Staines has form as long as your arm – […]

  27. Charles Gillies

    @aaronjohnpeters This sums him up http://t.co/3b1Ro7JF





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.